[ULPIANUS libro primo ad legem Iuliam et Papiam. ] §23.2.43.prPalam quaestum facere dicemus non tantum eam, quae in lupanario se prostituit, uerum etiam si qua (ut adsolet) in taberna cauponia uel qua alia pudori suo non parcit.
[ULPIANUS, in his first book on the Lex Iulia et Papia.] We shall say that not only she plies her trade publicly who prostitutes herself in a brothel, but also if any woman (as is customary) does not spare her modesty in a tavern or any other place.
§23.2.43.1Palam autem sic accipimus passim, hoc est sine dilectu: non si qua adulteris uel stupratoribus se committit, sed quae uicem prostitutae sustinet.
But "publicly" we understand in this way: everywhere, that is, without discrimination; not if any woman surrenders herself to adulterers or corrupters, but she who plays the part of a prostitute.
§23.2.43.2Item quod cum uno et altero pecunia accepta commiscuit, non uidetur palam corpore quaestum facere.
Likewise, the fact that a woman has consorted with one or two individuals after receiving money does not mean that she is seen to ply her trade publicly with her body.
§23.2.43.3Octauenus tamen rectissime ait etiam eam, quae sine quaestu palam se prostituerit, debuisse his connumerari.
Octavenus, however, very rightly says that even she who has prostituted herself publicly without gain ought to have been numbered among these.
§23.2.43.4Non solum autem ea quae facit, uerum ea quoque quae fecit, etsi facere desiit, lege notatur: neque enim aboletur turpitudo, quae postea intermissa est.
But not only she who does this, but also she who has done so, even if she has ceased to do it, is branded by the law; for disgrace that was afterwards discontinued is not wiped out.
§23.2.43.5Non est ignoscendum ei, quae obtentu paupertatis turpissimam uitam egit.
No excuse is to be made for her who, under the pretext of poverty, has led a most disgraceful life.
§23.2.43.6Lenocinium facere non minus est quam corpore quaestum exercere.
To practice pandering is no less than to ply a trade with one's body.
§23.2.43.7Lenas autem eas dicimus, quae mulieres quaestuarias prostituunt.
But we call those women "bawds" who prostitute mercenary women.
§23.2.43.8Lenam accipiemus et eam, quae alterius nomine hoc uitae genus exercet.
We shall also class as a bawd her who practices this kind of life under another's name.
§23.2.43.9Si qua cauponam exercens in ea corpora quaestuaria habeat (ut multae adsolent sub praetextu instrumenti cauponii prostitutas mulieres habere), dicendum hanc quoque lenae appellatione contineri.
If any woman managing a tavern has mercenary bodies in it (as many are accustomed to have prostituted women under the pretext of tavern equipment), it must be said that she also is included under the designation of a bawd.
§23.2.43.10Senatus censuit non conueniens esse ulli senatori uxorem ducere aut retinere damnatam publico iudicio, quo iudicio cuilibet ex populo experiri licet, nisi si cui lege aliqua accusandi publico iudicio non est potestas.
The Senate decreed that it is not fitting for any senator to marry or retain a wife condemned in a public trial—in which trial any of the people is allowed to bring an action—except if anyone does not have the power of accusing in a public trial by some law.
§23.2.43.11Si qua calumniae iudicio damnata sit ex causa publici iudicii et quae praeuaricationis damnata est, publico iudicio damnata esse non uidetur.
If any woman has been condemned in a trial for calumny arising from a public trial, or she who has been condemned for collusion, she is not seen to have been condemned in a public trial.
§23.2.43.12Quae in adulterio deprehensa est, quasi publico iudicio damnata est.
She who has been caught in adultery is as if condemned in a public trial.
proinde si adulterii condemnata esse proponatur, non tantum quia deprehensa est erit notata, sed quia et publico iudicio damnata est.
Therefore, if she is proposed to have been convicted of adultery, she will be branded not only because she was caught, but because she was also condemned in a public trial.
quod si non sit deprehensa, damnata autem, idcirco notetur, quia publico iudicio damnata est.
But if she was not caught, but condemned, she is branded for the reason that she was condemned in a public trial.
at si deprehensa quidem sit, damnata autem non sit, notata erit? ego puto, etsi absoluta sit post deprehensionem, adhuc tamen notam illi obesse debere, quia uerum est eam in adulterio deprehensam, quia factum lex, non sententiam notauerit.
But if indeed she was caught, but not condemned, will she be branded? I think that even if she has been acquitted after being caught, the brand ought still to stand against her, because it is true that she was caught in adultery, since the law branded the deed, not the sentence.
§23.2.43.13Non adicitur hic ut in lege Iulia de adulteriis a quo uel ubi deprehensam: proinde siue maritus siue quis alius deprehendisse proponatur, uidetur notata: sed et si non in domo mariti uel patris sui deprehensa sit, erit notata secundum uerba legis.
It is not added here, as in the Lex Iulia de adulteriis, by whom or where she was caught; therefore, whether it is proposed that her husband or anyone else caught her, she is seen to be branded; but even if she was not caught in the house of her husband or her father, she will be branded according to the words of the law.